In 1967, Israel declared its survival unthreatened, yet the October 7, 2023 attack in Gaza challenged this. Israel’s history is marked by military aggression and territorial expansion, which it has justified with existential threat narratives. As Palestinians continue suffering, neither local nor international proposals offer a viable way forward, making a unified Palestinian front the only path to reclaiming agency.
In the aftermath of the Six-Day War in June 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol declared that the existential threat to Israel, which had loomed since its establishment, was eliminated. He emphasized that Israel would ensure this threat would never return. However, on October 7, 2023, following an attack by Hamas, the Palestinian Sunni military and political group, Israel’s image as an invincible military force was momentarily shaken, both in the Arab world and more profoundly within Israeli society.
Israel's portrayal as a fortress, impervious to attack, has been integral to its survival narrative. It’s no surprise that Israel has consistently sought to restore this image, drawing on the legacy of past victories, notably the Six-Day War. That conflict was pivotal, not only for territorial expansion — with Israel occupying Arab lands — but for establishing political and strategic foundations that have shaped Israel's policies and global relations.
Reflecting on the present reality, the current moment could be even more transformative and dangerous than the Nakba (the Palestinian displacement during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War) or the Six-Day War.
Lessons from the Past
Israel learned from the 1956 Suez Crisis, where it allied with colonial powers France and Great Britain, yet failed to gain significant support from the emerging superpowers. By the time of the Six-Day War, Israel had refocused its diplomatic efforts on securing American support, which played a key role in its military actions. Through a targeted propaganda campaign, Israel portrayed itself as a victim of imminent aggression by Arab states, while the Soviet Union was depicted as the primary arms supplier to those nations. The narrative, resonating with memories of World War II horrors, generated sympathy from the US and Western audiences.
The surprise airstrike on June 5, 1967, which crippled the Egyptian Air Force, was framed as a necessary preemptive strike. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights, which followed the conflict, was justified as a response to an existential threat. However, the war also resulted in the displacement of about 300,000 Palestinians and placed over a million others under Israeli occupation.
The long-term political and strategic gains of 1967 far surpassed those of the 1948 war, marking a significant shift in Israel’s security approach.
Repeating History
Israel has used similar tactics for decades, but the current war on Gaza demonstrates even more blatant escalation. Israel could have framed Hamas’s attack as an isolated security incident or act of terrorism, as it had with previous Palestinian resistance efforts. This time, however, it declared the assault an existential threat, with Prime Minister Netanyahu describing it as the most dangerous event in Jewish history since the Holocaust.
The current narrative frames the threat as being from Iran and its regional proxies, leading to unprecedented levels of violence. Israel’s justification for its actions is the complete dismantling of these perceived threats.
Who Ends Wars?
No armed conflict, especially in the context of the Arab-Israeli struggle, ends due to global sympathy or revulsion at atrocities. Wars cease when powerful actors with the means to stop them intervene. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, despite initial inaction from the UN, the war ended only after the Soviet Union threatened military intervention, and the US exerted diplomatic pressure to maintain the regional balance.
In 1967, Israel accepted the UN Security Council’s ceasefire after it achieved its objectives. This conflict, and the subsequent UN Resolution 242, laid the groundwork for negotiations that saw land swaps and future peace accords with Egypt and Jordan.
A Changing Landscape
In the ongoing war, Israel has caused significant devastation in Gaza, with death tolls in the tens of thousands, widespread injuries, and millions displaced. The situation is dire, and the current conflict is often compared to the Nakba of 1948, though a key difference lies in the complete lack of refuge for Palestinians. In contrast to 1948, Palestinians in Gaza face mass displacement and death with no safe haven.
Even if a ceasefire were reached, reconstruction of Gaza would take decades, raising profound questions about the future of Palestinians in the region.
Shifting Power Dynamics
Israel is likely to retain its strategic gains, both in Gaza and beyond. The situation in Lebanon and Syria demonstrates Israel’s broader ambitions for territorial control, including its attempts to neutralize Hezbollah in Lebanon and expand its control over the Golan Heights.
The US continues to support Israel, as it did with Resolution 242, and the same will likely be true in the current conflict, ensuring Israel's territorial and political gains.
Is There a Path to Peace?
Despite the issuance of an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant for Netanyahu and his defense minister, international efforts to hold Israel accountable have historically faced US opposition. The international community’s reluctance to apply real pressure on Israel, without US backing, continues to hinder progress toward peace.
The two-state solution, envisioned by Resolution 242, appears increasingly distant as Israel’s expansion continues and as Arab mediation efforts to unify Palestinian leadership falter. Palestinian suffering is compounded by ongoing devastation in Gaza and the West Bank, and there are no clear solutions on the horizon.
A Bleak Future
While some in Gaza have called for disarmament or reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, the larger issue remains: the lack of a unified Palestinian front. Efforts to rebuild a cohesive Palestinian movement, as seen in the past with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), are necessary if any meaningful change is to come. The PLO’s strength came not just from its political factions, but from a broad base of unions, feminist groups, and refugee organizations.
Palestinians now face the challenge of forging a new, unified movement capable of advancing their national aspirations — a movement that must be self-led, not dictated by international law, Arab regimes, or factions. This remains the key to any hope of liberation from occupation.
0 Comments